10 January, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes
DRAFT 1/10/05
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
January 10, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall
Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Hazel Jones, Ester deJong, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott, Larry Tyree
Members Absent: Mirka Koro-Ljungberg
Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Dean Jeri Benson, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel
Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.
Agenda and Minutes
1. Approval of the agenda for January 10, 2005
Tyree moved to approve the January 10, 2005 meeting agenda. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.
2. Approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2004 meeting
Campbell moved to approve the October 25, 2004 minutes as submitted. Scott seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.
Conroy reminded those present that the next agenda committee meeting will be on February 14. Members can send agenda suggestions to her, Tyree, or Jones. She stated that Jones and Conroy plan to attend the Dean’s Chairs Committee meeting to discuss increasing the participation of faculty in the FPC. She also noted that the winter faculty meeting will be held on January 28 in Room 2337. The purpose of the meeting will be to develop themes and a vision for our college to guide the creation of our strategic plan. The development of the strategic plan is a process and it is important for faculty to have input.
Amatea discussed the need to provide clear objectives and specific steps for faculty to take to contribute to the development of the strategic plan.
Committee Reports
1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee met and finalized the EDS requirements. The committee also voted to use the University’s
GRE requirements. This means students with a Masters degree can be accepted without a GRE score. Stronger GRE requirements are at each department’s discretion.
2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee is finishing its work on the criteria for promotion and merit pay.
3. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Amatea reported that the committee has been inactive but has future plans to develop a policy for travel awards.
4. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the group has not met because they are waiting for a Dean’s report on space usage. Conroy asked Benson if it would be helpful for faculty to provide ideas on how space should be used. Benson asked if there were other long-term planning issues in addition to space that should be considered. Jones suggested the committee should be involved in assisting with the planning for development of the strategic plan.
5. Research Advisory Committee: No report due to Koro-Ljungberg’s absence.
6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that the group has developed a rubric to rank fellowship applicants. deJong suggested that international students should not be forgotten in this process. She noted the difficulty international students have competing with students who speak English as a first language. Lamme questioned the way fellowships are awarded. She stated that the current practice of awarding one per department and then deciding the rest by committee may not be fair because the size of the Teaching and Learning department is much larger than the others. Dean Emihovich stated that the College of Education receives a disproportionately high number of fellowships in relation to other colleges. She believes this is because we put forth such high-caliber candidates. She expressed concern that if the system were changed, the qualifications of the award recipients might not be as high. Conroy noted that graduate students also receive other sorts of funding.
7. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee is working on the computer security policy. Some faculty members have requested administrative access to their own computers. They are trying to schedule a meeting with Kathy Bergsma.
Tyree left the room to attend another meeting.
Report from the Dean
2004-2005 COE Budget
Conroy provided a copy of the budget. Benson reported that the Salary & OPS column on the budget table also includes fringe benefits. Approximately one
quarter of every number in the salary column represents fringe. The Operational column represents expenditures on office supplies. Fixed salary costs are 95% of the budget. There are some discretionary funds listed at the bottom of the budget. The $492,506 Carry/Forward budget item should be edited to “search expenses, new computers, and building renovations”. Conroy questioned whether the current work in the courtyard was paid for with carry/forward funds. Dean Emihovich replied that this work was initiated by physical plant and not paid for by the college.
Dean Emihovich explained that she cannot use carry-forward funds to hire faculty because it is not a recurring revenue source. Most carry-forward funds go to conducting searches. It takes $8000-$10,000 per search and the college is running 11 searches this year. This budget represents where the college started at the beginning of the year, so some allocations have already been spent. The $872,122 funds for Alliance, Lastinger and Baby Gator also includes Alliance grant money that can only be used for the Alliance.
Conroy asked where the School Service Center appropriation comes from. Dean Emihovich responded that some money is from various services the college provides to schools. She went on to explain that the overhead account in her discretionary budget is intentionally high because she has been saving this for the research office. Tyree asked when the research office would be self-sustaining. Dean Emihovich responded she is looking at a three-year timetable to set up the program.
Tyree asked if the Operational budget column includes funding for equipment. Benson responded that very little of the money funds equipment. Dean Emihovich is in the process of searching for an information technology director. The director will develop a comprehensive rotational plan so faculty will get new computers in a timely manner. Benson also mentioned that some department chairs use discretionary money from grants to purchase equipment.
Conroy asked where money for a new technology director comes from. Dean Emihovich responded that the college never replaced its former director so there is already money set aside. The technology director’s salary is drawn from the Dean’s Areas.
Conroy and Tyree noted that the format of the budget document was informative and easy to understand. Benson mentioned that she is available for comments and questions regarding the budget. Dean Emihovich stated that the end of the fiscal year is June 30, so the next budget the FPC will see will be the summary of what was spent. Another source of money not represented on the budget are foundation awards. For example, the BO Smith professorships are funded through the foundation. Foundation grants allow much more flexibility than federal or state grants. She also noted that enrollment in graduate programs has grown. She suggested that growth in the online program has helped overall enrollment. The
College of Education probably has better than average growth compared to other colleges in the university. The deans have only seen preliminary figures though. Enrollment is key because if the college doesn’t increase enrollment, it can’t grow in other areas.
Conroy asked for other questions on the budget. There were none.
Report from the Faculty Senate
Amatea reported that the Senate is asking faculty to serve on university-wide committees. There were virtually no representatives from the College of Education listed on university committees. That was the focus of the last meeting (last semester).
Benson asked if any progress had been made on tenure and promotion recommendations. Amatea reported that there has been no progress on that yet.
Discussion Items
FPC Representation & Committee Structure
Over the break Conroy and Jones discussed the feeling among faculty in the college that there are too many meetings and committees. There are faculty who have been involved for years, and some who are not involved. Conroy expressed the need to make sure that the committees are an efficient use of faculty time. She wants to know why faculty are not involved and what would be needed to increase participation. Not many people are stepping up to serve in FPC and equal sharing of committee responsibilities has been a problem in several departments. In addition, there is a lack of senior faculty members participating in committees.
The agenda committee met and discussed condensing the number of committees. The committee proposes combining the Research, Seminars, & Awards Committee and the Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee. It also proposes combining the Faculty, Budgetary Affairs, and the Long Range Planning Committee. Scott added that the Technology committee does not have much on its agenda and might be a good candidate for consolidation as well. Tyree agreed with Scott that the Technology Committee might be good to fold into another committee. Dean Emihovich suggested that the Technology committee needs to handle issues with online course delivery. Scott explained that his department has its own technology committee that deals with online course issues.
deJong cautioned that consolidating the committees will create more work on each committee which may be a disincentive for faculty to participate. Conroy explained that consolidating the committees would mean fewer people need to be involved. Jones stated that if a committee isn’t doing anything there is no reason for it to exist. Lamme stated that it seems like there are two kinds of committees:
The kind that has an ongoing agenda and the kind that only works when an issue arises. She suggested the latter should be formed on an ad-hoc basis. She expressed the concern that people don’t see the FPC as accomplishing much. Tyree added that there are currently few incentives to be involved in FPC.
Jones read the rules for amending the constitution, which would be required to consolidate committees. There needs to be a meeting in which two-thirds of the tenure-accruing faculty members present vote for the change.
There was general agreement to pursue the consolidation of committees and discuss within the departments what it would take to increase participation on the FPC.
Tyree suggested removing the Technology Committee as well.
Other comments about why the senior faculty might not participate included: they feel they have already paid their dues by serving on committees on the past and they leave these things to the junior faculty because this is how it has always been done before. Another suggestion was that it might be helpful to reduce the amount of time required for in-person meeting and meeting online instead. It was also pointed out that there is a reason that policy decisions are not made quickly. It takes time to deliberate and consider important issues.
Dean Emihovich is concerned about the suggestion of incentives. Serving on committees is a professional responsibility, even if it is not absolutely required. It may also be used to help determine merit pay.
Dean Emihovich and Associate Dean Jeri Benson left the room
Administrator’s Attendance at FPC Meetings
Faculty discussed the rationale for inviting the deans to sit through the entire FPC meeting. Some suggested that the deans should present their reports, but do not need to stay afterward. Amatea asked about the issues that come before the FPC and whether they are faculty or administration-driven. Conroy responded that there are both sorts of issues and that the agenda committee is open to both.
Conroy stated that the Deans are supposed to be passive participants in the FPC and that the information they provide on a casual basis throughout the meeting is often informative. Dean Emihovich also does not have much opportunity to hear feedback from faculty. Tyree and Scott stated that they enjoy getting an update on what is going on in the college from the deans. He suggested that the deans be invited to attend every meeting, but that they stay only for the items that require their input.
There was general agreement that this could be decided on a meeting-by-meeting basis.
Kuhel announced a Graduate Student Symposium on March 15 sponsored by SAGE. She asked faculty to encourage graduate students to submit papers.
Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Amatea motioned to adjourn. Jones seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:55 pm.
Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda; (2) Draft of the October 25, 2004 FPC Minutes; (3) State Budget for the College of Education; and (4) FPC Standing Committee Activities 2004-2005 and Proposed Changes.
